When the Parliamentary Standards Bill was introduced, it contained a clause stating parliamentary privilege did not prevent evidence being admissible.
With his poll lead slipping, his team’s competence questioned and his policies under attack, David Cameron today stands accused of “breathtaking” hypocrisy over his comments on the expenses scandal. In a speech on rebuilding trust in politics the Conservative party lead sought to portray himself as “the change Britain desperately needs”, criticising Gordon Brown for being a “roadblock to political reform”.
His record since the scandal broke, however, belies such rhetoric, Left Foot Forward can reveal.
When the Parliamentary Standards Bill was introduced in the Commons on June 23rd, it contained a clause stating parliamentary privilege did not prevent evidence being admissible in proceedings against an MP for an offence in the Bill – a clause deleted after opposition from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Speaking in the debate, then Shadow Leader of the House Alan Duncan had said:
“We still have concerns about clause 10, which creates a formal provision to allow proceedings to be admissible in court proceedings against an MP, regardless of parliamentary privilege…
“Inasmuch as IPSA has power over our allowances, we are largely content, but inasmuch as it muddies the water and empowers the courts to intrude on our independence of action, it must be resisted.
“Even more dangerously, as the Clerk goes on to suggest, the casual disregard for parliamentary privilege in the Bill, particularly in clause 10, could cause permanent damage to parliamentary proceedings.”
Justice Secretary Jack Straw told Left Foot Forward:
“David Cameron’s position this morning is breathtaking for its sheer hypocrisy. Just a few months ago the Conservative Party were actively sabotaging all efforts to exclude the ambit of parliamentary privilege from the new laws on MPs expenses.
“Now Mr Cameron’s lust for an easy headline has provoked yet another bout of rank opportunism. The British public will see right through it.”
David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg are among those who voted against the proposals on reforming parliamentary privilege.
Concerns have also been raised as to whether Mr Cameron’s outspoken remarks will prejudice any future trial against the three MPs – Jim Devine, David Chaytor and Elliot Morley – and Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, all of whom have been charged with theft by false accounting, with Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman warning him:
“He’s got to be very careful what he says or his comments might actually jeopardise the trial and nobody wants to see that happen.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
34 Responses to “Hypocritical Cameron voted against proposals to reform parliamentary privilege”
Tim J
And you’re arguing that Cameron is publishing material that is more likely to prejudice the outcome of the trial than the identical messages coming from the Home Office and Downing Street? Hmm.
Besides, I suspect that discussions as to the applicability of a parliamentary privilege defence, and whether such a defence is morally justifiable falls squarely under the exemption in clause 5 of the CCA.
“A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.”
The argument that Cameron (or any other of the commentators) should be legally prohibited from commenting on these proceedings is ludicrous.
Tom
Tim J: Both the Home Secretary nor the Prime Minister said that privilege shouldn’t be used as a defence. Fine. But that’s not what the Leader of the Opposition has said – he has gone further, said that it should be legally removed as a defence, AND attacked the government for not already doing so – despite his blocking an attempt to do just that. I fail to see how anyone can claim that the Home Secretary’s or Prime Minister’s comments are hypocritical. The Leader of the Opposition’s certainly are.
Mark Pack: What were these implications? S.10 of the Bill was pretty narrow, providing only that privilege could not prevent IPSA and the Commissioner from carrying out their functions, or any evidence being admissible in regard to the offences created by s.9 of that Bill relating to expenses fraud and registration of interests. It wouldn’t affect any other criminal or civil cases, so Robson’s worries above are entirely misplaced.
Tom
And yeah, there’s no risk of anyone being prosecuted for contempt of court here. Since a contempt of court prosecution means admitting a fair trial is pretty much impossible, and therefore abandoning the prosecution, they’re really very rare. Even flagrant contempts like the headline ‘GOT THE BASTARDS’ when the 21/7 tube bombing suspects (as they were at the time) were arrested didn’t lead to anything.
Mark
Condemning someone because they voted against the Parliamentary Standards Bill doesn’t mean they are allowing MPs off the hook, it’s more complicated than that.
Why not come out and condemn those who seek privilege as their defence? I know this blog is big on Labour but if you can’t bring yourself to condemn the use of “privilege” then surely you’re not a progressive, you’re a reactionary.
Tom
Mark – ‘privilege’ in legal terms is different from ‘privilege’ in general. I think what the parliamentarians are doing in attempting to use parliamentary privilege to prevent investigation into possible fraud is incredibly grubby, debases the idea of parliamentary privilege, makes politicians in general look bad, and – in my opinion – won’t even work.
But that doesn’t mean legal privilege in general is a bad thing. The law that prevents the court from forcing your solicitor to testify against you is a form of privilege. So is the law that prevents a newspaper being sued for libel for printing a story that it believed to be true and behaved responsibly over (though that one isn’t as strong as it could be). And parliamentary privilege prevents MPs for being sued or prosecuted for things they say in parliament, to allow them to speak without fear.